????我們招聘和提拔了一批又一批管理者,，他們有著高超的分析技能，但社交能力極差,，而我們似乎認(rèn)為這一點(diǎn)并不重要,。

????這個問題有多嚴(yán)重,？最近，筆者與管理研究集團(tuán)（Management Research Group）合作,，對10年間收集的四個大陸60,000名管理者的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了分析,。我們提出了下列問題：從關(guān)注工作目標(biāo)和其他人需求的能力方面來判斷，有多少管理者能夠入選top 33%,？

????答案是,，僅有0.77%。只有不足1%的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和管理者似乎在這兩個方面都非常擅長,。如果將范圍擴(kuò)大到50%,，得到的答案也僅有5%。

????許多公司所面臨的最大的挑戰(zhàn),，背后的根源往往是社交能力不足,。從最高層開始，如果領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不擅長理解其他人,，他們可能會制定一項(xiàng)策略,，期望獲得所有人的支持，而不會去考慮其他人對方案的想法,。實(shí)際上,，麥肯錫公司（McKinsey & Co）在15年間統(tǒng)計(jì)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，僅有30%的改革方案取得了成功,。

????高管往往期望員工遵守指令,，按照計(jì)劃執(zhí)行策略，卻從來不會去考慮人性因素,。在對員工進(jìn)行績效反饋時,，人力資源部會提供數(shù)據(jù),，希望人們做出改正,，卻從來沒有意識到，有時候批評和威脅一個人的生命并無兩樣,。

????那么正確的做法應(yīng)該是怎樣的,？瞻博網(wǎng)絡(luò)（Juniper Networks，筆者的客戶）完全拋棄了績效管理排名,，因?yàn)樗庾R到業(yè)績評估會造成社交威脅,，進(jìn)而影響合作。這種嘗試已有四年時間,，結(jié)果如何,？員工積極性提高，薪酬差異化更大,，不合適的人會更快地離開公司,。

????簡而言之：我們是高度社會化的生物,，在許多情況下，社交需求的重要性遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于身體需求,。正如利伯曼在書中所形容的那樣,，馬斯洛或許是錯誤的：社交并非處于需求金字塔的頂端，而是與身體需求一樣處在下方的基礎(chǔ)位置,。除非我們在設(shè)計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)的時候就接受,、考慮這一觀點(diǎn)，否則,，只有不足30%的員工在積極工作的現(xiàn)象會持續(xù)下去,，而許多最重要的機(jī)構(gòu)最終也將走向衰敗。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????大衛(wèi)?洛克為神經(jīng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力研究所聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人,，是一名顧問,，著有《正常運(yùn)作的大腦》一書。歡迎于11月6日與7日親臨在華盛頓特區(qū)舉辦的神經(jīng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力峰會,，現(xiàn)場傾聽馬修?利伯曼分享他的思想,。若無法前往現(xiàn)場，可觀看免費(fèi)視頻,。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓???

????We have hired and promoted generations of managers with robust analytical skills and poor social skills, and we don't seem to think that matters.

????How bad is the problem? Recently, I worked with the firm Management Research Group to look into data on 60,000 managers collected over 10 years across four continents. We asked the following question: What percentage of managers could be considered among the top 33% of performers as measured by their ability to focus both on work goals and the needs of other people?

????The answer? Only 0.77%. Less than 1% of leaders and managers seem to be reasonably strong in both areas. If we look at just being in the top 50% of performers, we still only get 5%.

????A lack of social skills is behind some of the biggest challenges in organizations. Starting from the top, if leaders are not good at understanding others, they are likely to develop a strategy and expect everyone to get on board, without stopping to imagine how others may feel about that plan. In fact, just 30% of change initiatives succeed, according to 15 years of data from McKinsey & Co.

????Executives often expect that employees will follow orders and execute a strategy as planned without taking into account the human factors at play. When it comes time to give employees performance feedback, HR departments provide data and expect people to just change without recognizing that criticism is like having someone threaten your life.

????So, what can a positive story look like? Juniper Networks (JNPR) (full disclosure: a client of mine) got rid of performance management rankings entirely, recognizing it created social threats that reduced collaboration. The outcome of this experiment after four years so far? Increased motivation, greater pay differentiation, and wrong people leaving the company faster.

????In short: we are deeply social beings, with social needs mattering more than physical needs in many situations. As Lieberman describes in Social, Maslow may have been wrong: social is not up the pyramid, it is right down there at the base with physical needs. Until this insight makes its way into how we design our institutions, we may continue to see less than 30% of people in our organizations actively engaged in their work, and a number of our most important institutions failing.

????David Rock is cofounder of the Neuroleadership Institute, a consultant and author of Your Brain at Work. Hear Matt Lieberman present his thinking at the NeuroLeadership Summit in Washington D.C, November 6 and 7. Watch the action via free live streaming if you can't make it.